OPEN FORUM -- Wilson's Veto Ignores Real Needs

GOVERNOR WILSON'S veto of the welfare reform plan crafted by the Democrats should not have been a surprise to anyone. Wilson's action reveals inflexibility, unwillingness to compromise and a limited and punitive vision regarding real welfare reform. Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-San Leandro) accurately characterized Wilson's veto as blatantly disrespectful toward the Legislature.

Legislative leaders must now muster commitment and courage to fight for those who cannot fight this battle alone -- children, working adults, immigrants seeking a better life, and families struggling against a tide of paranoia carefully orchestrated by reactionary think tank researchers.

Overall, welfare reform plans are legislated by people of privilege making decisions about the lives of welfare recipients, based on misinformation and stereotypes steeped in racism, sexism, ageism, class issues and xenophobia. More than 70 percent of welfare recipients are children. Others include the elderly, disabled people, single female heads of household and other working poor.

Fifty-seven of California's 58 counties -- including San Francisco -- have more job seekers than jobs, so viable job creation is intrinsic to sound welfare reform. Jobs must pay a living wage, not lower the salaries of other low-wage earners, and not displace other workers. California's Legislative Analyst Office asserts that Governor Wilson's plan leaves less money for welfare recipients who work -- although the governor publicly extols the value of work. The Democrats' compromise plan includes flexible time limits to accomodate individual needs, regional job supply, training and child-care needs. Without flexibility, welfare recipients face deeper poverty. Publicly supported educational opportunities enhance low-income families' chances for success, encourage career options and allow individuals to exit poverty -- and stay out. More educated people mean healthier families, healthier children and healthier communities.

Wilson's inflexible insistence on time limits for recipients makes little fiscal sense considering California's volatile job market, where nearly a million workers are unemployed. Without a massive public works entity, more job seekers looking for nonexistent jobs means less money for struggling families and potentially more children in foster care. Ethical welfare reform requires a safety net of cash aid, housing assistance and medical benefits to protect vulnerable elderly and disabled residents from deeper poverty and potential homelessness. The alternative? Expensive hospitalization and other out-of- home care.

Unemployment insurance reform is critical, since fewer than 40 percent of eligible workers now receive benefits. Greater income support expedites re-entry in the work force and means fewer workers turning to welfare. An increase of one-tenth of 1 percent in the Employer Training Tax ( or raising the earnings ceiling from the current $7,000 to $15,000) would significantly increase state job training funds for retraining and vocational education for unemployed and underemployed workers. Better trained, better educated workers, isn't that a good thing?

A state-run Food Stamp program is cost-effective because food-stamp recipients return billions into California's agriculture-based economy and ensures benefits for legal residents -- and their children -- who are an integral part of our state and our society. (Congress has authorized enabling legislation for states to purchase Food Stamps from the Department of Agriculture). Although grant levels for recipients should at least meet basic needs, current monthly payments for a family of three in San Francisco are nearly 50 percent below the federal poverty level. The city's rental costs are California's highest and more than twice the national average. The city's child-care costs can consume 90 percent of annual minimum wage earnings. Therefore, health coverage for working poor must continue as people transition into jobs, especially jobs without benefits. Medi- Cal benefits must be maintained until affordable health coverage is available. Again, the alternative is expensive hospitalization, typically at county expense.

The governor's proposal to require mothers with infants as young as 12 weeks to work outside the home contradicts solid scientific research regarding the developmental importance of mother-child bonding during the child's first three years. Subsidized infant care currently accounts for only 4 percent of available child-care slots statewide, barely 10 percent of the need. Wilson's plan would dramatically increase the number of families needing such care, quickly exhausting child-care resources. Although quality subsidized child care is crucial for families entering the work force, child care should be available for all working families who need it.

Let's hope Democrats hold fast to what few principles remain in their compromise welfare plan. The price of not doing may well be our undoing.